|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Rhysrory30 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rhysrory30
L Plate Warrior
Joined: 07 Aug 2019
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
   |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
| kgm |
This post is not being displayed .
|
kgm
World Chat Champion
Joined: 04 Jun 2015
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| pinkyfloyd |
This post is not being displayed .
|
pinkyfloyd
Super Spammer
Joined: 20 Jul 2010
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
 |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Pete. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Pete.
Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Karma : 
|
 Posted: 07:05 - 07 Aug 2019  Post subject: |
 |
|
Firstly, if the guy has admitted fault and especially if you have witnesses then stop worrying about your costs being covered because it's HIS insurance that will be paying for your damages and they can't get out of that regardless of your CBT status.
Even if you get found out your insurance will probably be valid anyway since they usually state something along the lines of: "provided the insured has held and is not disqualified from holding a valid license". You weren't disqualified from holding, it just ran past it's renewal date so even then you'll probably be ok.
Keep your gob shut and act as if everything is ok. If you haven't been asked to produce documents by the cops by now you're already over that hurdle. Since you were given insurance by your own insurer the other guy's insurance aren't going to ask to see your license or CBT and if liability is contested your own insurer might get pissy (if they even notice) but in the end the worst they will do is reduce your payout if it goes shared liability.
Either way, his insurance are obliged to cover your losses in full if they accept liability so work on making your case as strong as possible. Him telling the cops it was his fault is a very good start.
____________________
a.k.a 'Geri'
132.9mph off and walked away. Gear is good, gear is good, gear is very very good  |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| grr666 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
grr666
Super Spammer
Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Karma :
|
Posted: 08:09 - 07 Aug 2019  Post subject: |
|
|
I'd start by NSFWing this thread tbh. Particularly as OP is using his name as a forum name. 
____________________
Currently enjoying products from Ford, Mazda and Yamaha
Ste wrote: Avatars are fine, it's signatures that need turning off.  |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| T.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
T.C
World Chat Champion
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Karma : 
|
Posted: 10:52 - 07 Aug 2019  Post subject: |
|
|
| pinkyfloyd wrote: | Best case scenario they dont ask and you get away with it, get a huge pay out and live a happy life.
Worst case scenario they ask for it and you get raped for driving without a licence(a cbt validates your licence for motorcycles), invalid insurance (becomes invalid without a licence) and end up with no pennies, potentially lots of points and live a very unhappy life feeling sorry for yourself for not renewing your CBT
In other news, well done on not getting ded tho. |
Insurancer is irelevant because as mentioned, if the crash was non fault, then the claim is made against the third party insurers and there is not even a requirement to notify your insurers at that stage.
Even someone who s guilty of various offences can still claim in a non fault crash. Whether that be no licence, disqualified from riding, not wearing a crash helmet, at the end of the day if the cause of the crash was due to the incompetence of another, then the person committing an offence is still entitled to make a claim. What might come into affect is what is called contributory negligence, but the percentage depends on the circumstances, for example not wearing a helmet will have a contributory negligence range from 0% to a maximum of 25%
As far as invalidating an insurance policy, not 100% accurate unless stated in the terms and conditions.
All the policies state is that the policy holder must have held a licence, whether that be current or expired. What many tend to do is reduce the level of cover to third party only, but they do tend to honour basic legal requirements.
Bear in mind however, that at the moment, any claim worth £1,000 or more and involves injury means that the legl costs can be claimed back under the fast track or multi rack scheme.
This changes later this year when only claims worth £5,000 or more will be able to claim back legal costs and will be inline with damage only litigation.
Any claim under £5K will have to be handled by the insurance companies or can be handled personally by the injured individual.
Any claim under £1K is handled by the small claims court only and out of pocket expenses are at the discretion of the court
____________________
It is better to arrive 30 seconds late in this world, than 30 years early in the next |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Teflon-Mike |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Teflon-Mike
tl;dr
Joined: 01 Jun 2010
Karma : 
|
| Posted: 11:06 - 07 Aug 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
Go book and do a new CBT ASAP, on a schol bike.
If any-one asks you then have in date DL196 to show them. IF they query dates, you threw the old ione away when you got new... and hope for the best.
You have for however many weeks been riding without licence entitlement... your bad.... why did you NOT go take testes and a full licence? The tests, self booked are only about £!20 and usually as cheap as a repeat CBT, and never have to be repeated if toyu pass.... and if you cant pass, what the hell you doing on the road? Do you really think its a good idea to carry on with a known riding deficiency? And CBT is merely a learners permit NOT a licence, so what made you think it great idea to carry on riding with however mant UNKNOWN riding deficiencies>?
Sorry to not have much if any sympathy, its in the dictionary between... if that's what you are looking for, BUT TWO YEARS is not exactly an inadequate length of time to sort yourself out, and book a test & get a licence .... if you cant see that coming heaven help you with the SMIDSYs!!!!
Bottom line vis insurance claim, it was NOT the other drivers fault.. if you should NOT have been on the rtoad for him to knock off.... so dont expect anyt compo and be greatful if you get anything.... if you beoke your leg doing a bank job, would you expect the security guard to pay you for the injury? So cuck it up and chalk it down to lessons learned, after all CBT = LEARNER, so learn from it and IF you carry on... GET A proper licence and some hazrd awareness!!
____________________
My Webby'Tef's-tQ, loads of stuff about my bikes, my Land-Rovers, and the stuff I do with them!
Current Bikes:'Honda VF1000F' ;'CB750F2N' ;'CB125TD ( 6 3 of em!)'; 'Montesa Cota 248'. Learner FAQ's:= 'U want to Ride a Motorbike! Where Do U start?' |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| The Shaggy D.A. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
The Shaggy D.A.
Super Spammer
Joined: 12 Sep 2008
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| redeem ouzzer |
This post is not being displayed .
|
redeem ouzzer
World Chat Champion
Joined: 06 Oct 2015
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| MCN |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MCN
Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ste
Not Work Safe
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :
|
Posted: 12:22 - 07 Aug 2019  Post subject: |
|
|
bcf y u no quote OP before he had a chance to delete?  |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Jmoan |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Jmoan
Could Be A Chat Bot
Joined: 18 Nov 2015
Karma :  
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ste
Not Work Safe
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :
|
| Posted: 16:06 - 07 Aug 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
| Teflon-Mike wrote: | Go book and do a new CBT ASAP, on a schol bike.
If any-one asks you then have in date DL196 to show them. IF they query dates, you threw the old ione away when you got new... and hope for the best.
You have for however many weeks been riding without licence entitlement... your bad.... why did you NOT go take testes and a full licence? The tests, self booked are only about £!20 and usually as cheap as a repeat CBT, and never have to be repeated if toyu pass.... and if you cant pass, what the hell you doing on the road? Do you really think its a good idea to carry on with a known riding deficiency? And CBT is merely a learners permit NOT a licence, so what made you think it great idea to carry on riding with however mant UNKNOWN riding deficiencies>?
Sorry to not have much if any sympathy, its in the dictionary between... if that's what you are looking for, BUT TWO YEARS is not exactly an inadequate length of time to sort yourself out, and book a test & get a licence .... if you cant see that coming heaven help you with the SMIDSYs!!!!
Bottom line vis insurance claim, it was NOT the other drivers fault.. if you should NOT have been on the rtoad for him to knock off.... so dont expect anyt compo and be greatful if you get anything.... if you beoke your leg doing a bank job, would you expect the security guard to pay you for the injury? So cuck it up and chalk it down to lessons learned, after all CBT = LEARNER, so learn from it and IF you carry on... GET A proper licence and some hazrd awareness!! |
Shouldn't have been on the road but he was.
All road users have a duty of care to other road users. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Rhysrory30 |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Rhysrory30
L Plate Warrior
Joined: 07 Aug 2019
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Pete. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Pete.
Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Aug 2006
Karma :
|
| Posted: 16:35 - 07 Aug 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
Take no notice of Teflong but DO listen to what TC has to say since he's in the industry.
____________________
a.k.a 'Geri'
132.9mph off and walked away. Gear is good, gear is good, gear is very very good |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| P. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
P.
Red Rocket
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Karma : 
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| Ste |
This post is not being displayed .
|
Ste
Not Work Safe
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BusterGonads |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BusterGonads
Trackday Trickster
Joined: 18 May 2018
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| MCN |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MCN
Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :
|
| Posted: 19:47 - 10 Aug 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
Butt... If no valid CBT then the injured party should not have been riding.
If not riding accident would not have happened.
The above is Sharia Law style logic.
Because it has nothing to do with Islam.
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| P. |
This post is not being displayed .
|
P.
Red Rocket
Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| BusterGonads |
This post is not being displayed .
|
BusterGonads
Trackday Trickster
Joined: 18 May 2018
Karma :
|
| Posted: 07:45 - 11 Aug 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
| MCN wrote: | Butt... If no valid CBT then the injured party should not have been riding.
If not riding accident would not have happened.
The above is Sharia Law style logic.
Because it has nothing to do with Islam. |
And the above, has NOTHING to do with the law applicable to a motorcyclist who made a bureaucratic faux pas, who has been maimed by a careless driver. You might just as well say that had the rider stayed in bed that morning, the accident would never have happened. The statement is true, but has nothing to do with the law applicable to injury caused by careless driving.
Think about the recent case of a poorly paid cyclist found liable for injury to a City financier woman who walked into the road looking at her mobile phone. He deviated behind her in an attempt to avoid hitting her, but she became aware of her mistake and stepped back whereupon they collided to her detriment. He was found 50% responsible and had tens of thousands of pounds of legal costs awarded against him as well as actual compensation. The judge said, " The responsible bike rider should expect pedestrians to do stupid things and has a duty of care to protect them." |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| MCN |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MCN
Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :
|
| Posted: 08:00 - 11 Aug 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
| BusterGonads wrote: | | MCN wrote: | Butt... If no valid CBT then the injured party should not have been riding.
If not riding accident would not have happened.
The above is Sharia Law style logic.
Because it has nothing to do with Islam. |
And the above, has NOTHING to do with the law applicable to a motorcyclist who made a bureaucratic faux pas, who has been maimed by a careless driver. You might just as well say that had the rider stayed in bed that morning, the accident would never have happened. The statement is true, but has nothing to do with the law applicable to injury caused by careless driving.
Think about the recent case of a poorly paid cyclist found liable for injury to a City financier woman who walked into the road looking at her mobile phone. He deviated behind her in an attempt to avoid hitting her, but she became aware of her mistake and stepped back whereupon they collided to her detriment. He was found 50% responsible and had tens of thousands of pounds of legal costs awarded against him as well as actual compensation. The judge said, " The responsible bike rider should expect pedestrians to do stupid things and has a duty of care to protect them." |
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Did you read the bit about Sharia Law?
You do know Sharia Law is only Make-Believe aye?
😲
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| T.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
T.C
World Chat Champion
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Karma :
|
| Posted: 16:31 - 11 Aug 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
| MCN wrote: | Butt... If no valid CBT then the injured party should not have been riding.
If not riding accident would not have happened.
The above is Sharia Law style logic.
Because it has nothing to do with Islam. |
Go back and read my post.
Do not confuse road traffic law with civil law.
Because someone has committed an offence does not precludse them from making a claim in the third party was negligent.
The courts have held that although the claimant may have committed an offence, but for the negligence of the third party the chances are on the balance of probability that the crash would not have happened in the first place.
Same as someone not wearing a helmet. It is an offence, but the chances are that the rider may have reached their destination without mishap but for the negligence of the third party.
The only question that then gets asked in a case like this is where the rider sustained a head injury, did the not wearig a helmet contribute to those head injuries?
If a specialist says no, the injuries would have been sustained in any case, then no contributory negligence.
If the answer is Yes, then it has to be determined how much it contributed to the head injury and contributory negligence can be applied up to a maximum of 25% of the injury claim.
In the case of pedestrians, search for one of my early posts where I covered this.
In a built up area, the courts have said that drivers and riders have a duty of care to anticipate the possibility of pedestrians walking out in front of them without checking, whether this is because they are texting on their phone or because they are blind drunk in the early hours of the morning, it matters not, the duty of care remains with the driver or rider.
This is where evidence is important becaus that can also determine the degree of contributory negligence which can be substantially more than if not wearing a crash helmet.
Yes, OP should not have been riding, he made a mistake, but it does not reclude him from claiming for his injuries and there would be no contributory negligence to worry about because in civil law it would have been deemed that even had he got a valid DL196, the crash would still have happened.
____________________
It is better to arrive 30 seconds late in this world, than 30 years early in the next |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| MCN |
This post is not being displayed .
|
MCN
Super Spammer
Joined: 22 Jul 2015
Karma :
|
| Posted: 17:02 - 11 Aug 2019 Post subject: |
|
|
| T.C wrote: | | MCN wrote: | Butt... If no valid CBT then the injured party should not have been riding.
If not riding accident would not have happened.
The above is Sharia Law style logic.
Because it has nothing to do with Islam. |
Go back and read my post.
Do not confuse road traffic law with civil law.
Because someone has committed an offence does not precludse them from making a claim in the third party was negligent.
The courts have held that although the claimant may have committed an offence, but for the negligence of the third party the chances are on the balance of probability that the crash would not have happened in the first place.
Same as someone not wearing a helmet. It is an offence, but the chances are that the rider may have reached their destination without mishap but for the negligence of the third party.
The only question that then gets asked in a case like this is where the rider sustained a head injury, did the not wearig a helmet contribute to those head injuries?
If a specialist says no, the injuries would have been sustained in any case, then no contributory negligence.
If the answer is Yes, then it has to be determined how much it contributed to the head injury and contributory negligence can be applied up to a maximum of 25% of the injury claim.
In the case of pedestrians, search for one of my early posts where I covered this.
In a built up area, the courts have said that drivers and riders have a duty of care to anticipate the possibility of pedestrians walking out in front of them without checking, whether this is because they are texting on their phone or because they are blind drunk in the early hours of the morning, it matters not, the duty of care remains with the driver or rider.
This is where evidence is important becaus that can also determine the degree of contributory negligence which can be substantially more than if not wearing a crash helmet.
Yes, OP should not have been riding, he made a mistake, but it does not reclude him from claiming for his injuries and there would be no contributory negligence to worry about because in civil law it would have been deemed that even had he got a valid DL196, the crash would still have happened. |
No... you go back and read my post.
Is their absolutely no satire in this forum now?
Who 'in their right mind' believes that Sharia Law means Hee-Haw in the legal systems of modern reasoned society?
It's from the stone age. It is irrelevant in real law.
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN. |
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
|
| T.C |
This post is not being displayed .
|
T.C
World Chat Champion
Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Karma :
|
|
| Back to top |
| |
You must be logged in to rate posts |
|
 |
Old Thread Alert!
The last post was made 6 years, 176 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful? |
 |
|
|
Help & FAQs
Search BCF
Members
Groups
Events Calendar
rating
rating